Alienware vs Falcon Northwest

[veg1992]

THERE ARE NO AMD CPU'S THAT CAN BEAT AN E6600.. NONE

i will bring you results, tests, anything the e6600 beats even the 6400+

show me some graphs tha show the 6400+ beat the e6600

exactly, Nosboost has owned many CPU's of both AMD and Intel, and gave up mostly on AMD because none of em even overclocked could beat his former e6600 @ 3.8ghz

and a 6000+ doesn't touch an e6600

where is Maroon when you need him?

 

[ricanflow]

Yeah this is intels year, amd is keeping up pretty well though, with a good selection of low priced dual cores and the new quads aint bad either. Especially in march when more come out.

 

[the_patriot2008]

THERE ARE NO AMD CPU'S THAT CAN BEAT AN E6600.. NONE

i will bring you results, tests, anything the e6600 beats even the 6400+

show me some graphs tha show the 6400+ beat the e6600

why am I wasting my time. I never got on here and blasted you or your likes in CPUS, I have nothing againts the e6600 other then its outrageous price-I didnt get on here and call you stupid or anything else. Im not wasting my time on graphs because youll just call me a liar anyway if I show them to you. all you want is a fight, its rather childish. I am only speaking from experience, I have used a couple computers with the e6600-and was impressed by it, remarkable performance, intel finally got it right with the core2. but I find personally that my 6000+ outperforms it, and I have several friends who have used both intel and AMD telling me the same thing. to get on here and call another person names and say they dont know what their talkin about just cuz they like a different model CPU then you is CHILDISH and insulting, and is like spitting in your face. you want to think I dont know what Im talking about, fine. you want to think your e6600 is better then mine just cuz of a graph on toms hardware, then fine. I dont care, but dont get on here and insult me because I disagree with you. I didnt do it to you.

 

[NosBoost300]

i'm not bashing on you, i'm stating facts

i've owned an amd 3500+ opteron 146, 3800x2 3800x2 (socket AM2) and an fx-62 that i ran at 3.0ghz

and it wasnt faster than my old stock e6600

i know you won't notice real life difference in most situations, but i'm simply stating, that there is no dual core AMD cpu that'll keep up w/ an e6600

so don't think i'm speaking through graphs, because i've owned TONS of hardware just in the past 2 years.. would you like me to list??

cpu's:
AMD - socket 939: 3500+ 3800x2 socket AM2: 3800x2, fx-62
Intel - E6600, Q6600

motherboards: Abit kn8-SLi, ECS Nforce 4M-A, Asus P5N32E-SLi Plus

Video cards: 2x 6800gs, 2x 6800 vanilla, 2x 7900gt, 7300gt, x1950pro, x1900xt, x1950xtx, x300, 8800gts 640mb, 8600gts 512mb, 8800gtx, 2900pro.. i'm sure there's more but at this point i dont care

i've tried overclocking other cpu's such as, my friends e6700, my other friends 4200+, a 1.2ghz celeron, 3.0ghz pentium 4's

so don't tell me i havent tried hardware and only rely on charts.. because i have owned my share of hardware, in an incredibly short amount of time

if you really wanna get down to the nitty gritty

what cpu are you running... i'll run the same exact program as you (cpu intensive of course), and turn off 2 cores, and we'll see who takes the cake.. this'll make me pretty much exactly like an e6600.. i can even ask a few other people here on the forums to run some tests just to prove my point

again, i am in no way trying to call you dumb, or spit in your face.... i am just simply stating the truth.. there isnt very many applications that amd does outdo core2duo.. and the only applications that do, see to be memory bandwidth tests...

 

[ThirdLeft152]

i agree the e6600 win's in pretty much every aspect, and yes it is over priced now and who would buy a new one anymore when you can get a e6750 for less? AMD's are sweet cpu's i love them, sometimes i feel they handle basic desktop needs better, this sounds weird but my e6400 locks up for a split second occasionally just when doing normal stuff whereas my moms 3600+ just seems like it flows (however this could also be due to the higher memory bandwidth AMD does have) but when it comes down to it, e6600 will get the job done faster in pretty much any cpu intensive task.

on a lighter note, thats a sweet sig Nos

 

[NosBoost300]

hahah thanks, i just felt i needed something team fortress 2 related and whipped something up in about 15 min

great scene i caught.. too bad you can't see the whole thing

the spy just snuck up on that heavy, and while that happeneda grenade was chucked down at the spy's foot, and i was just killed by the heavy!!! just an intense scene!

 

[gurusan]

I can't even believe people are still trying to say that AMD processors are better after all this time.

The only thing they had over Intel is that they were cheaper (quite a good advantage though of course)...and that's not the case anymore unless you aren't overclocking. Stock for stock if you take price into consideration the AMD is quite a good buy...but if you are an enthusiast then I don't see why anyone would even consider AMD when even budget e2160s get to 3.5+ghz and outperform the AMD clock for clock.

 

[ricanflow]

Yeah for a long time they were better, and still are for people who dont oc, but for the hardcore guys intel is in the lead. Im sure its gonna change again, and amd will come out with something that will hold off intel for a while, not sure when that will happen though. Amd did create the first 64 bit cpu, gotta give em props for that.

 

[NosBoost300]

glad to see another person has stepped in to help aid me.. lol

 

[gurusan]

Amd did create the first 64 bit cpu, gotta give em props for that.

actually they didn't

The first true 64bit processor was made in 1991 by some weirdass company for Silicon Graphics workstations....and Intel had the Itanium (64bit processors) 2 years before AMD had their 64bit chips selling..........and even had time to go through a revision with the Itanium 2 before AMD began marketing the AMD64 and Opty processors.